Just out of interest, where does Fidel Castro fit into your position?

I was asking for evidence that watered-down policies make no 'progress'. If what you actually mean is that watered-down policies are one which you don't like, then just say so. What you're trying to argue is that watered down policies are actually stalling 'progress'. that's a different claim to them just not being your preferred policy. — Isaac

Hopefully I’ll never see any grumbling or dissatisfaction from you about the state of things in the world because you’re happy with the results and decisions made by governments, the progress.

If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind.

I now realise that this is just another boring right-wing moan. You guys are always trying to dress up your basic unexamined conservatism in some higher sounding philosophical rhetoric — Isaac

Ahh, I see. You can’t handle exploration of uncomfortable ideas.

It's not my fault that I happen to live in a society that provides me with benefits, such as roads and schooling. — Wheatley

The problem is that you live in a society that functions on the level you dismiss. Not everyone expects something in return. In fact I imagine most never want to go to hospital, call the police, an ambulance or fire service or ask their neighbour for help.

Where exactly is modern society's morality documented? — alcontali

Why would it be documented?

One reason why such society does not want to document it, is because they want to keep changing it as it suits them. The lack of of documentation points to its fundamentally deceptive and manipulative nature. — alcontali

How do you expect it to be documented? What form would you imagine it taking?

And you suggest this is a collective effort.

The way in which morality works in so-called "modern society" is rather something for an illiterate society. — alcontali

How so?

The use of the word power immediately sets up problems about what it means.

“In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. The term "authority" is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust. This sort of primitive exercise of power is historically endemic to humans; however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

The power of an individual. This could just as well mean authority as well. But not in terms of those who apply the law or rules or have a legal power over others. For me these words mean a person who possesses authority, who possesses a commanding manner or has a sense of power in the way they behave, has confidence in themselves or is influential in their relationship with others. Such people are very influential, very persuasive and they tend to lead or inspire people to act in a similar way.

Because of this, and maybe because of our social or tribal nature, they create followers or people who put their faith in them. We could probably make a list of such people and we may have even met such people.

These people have always existed and they also exist in the animal kingdom, primarily in primates. It does not necessarily mean they are bad or tyrannical. They could not exist without the cooperation of others. Nor would those others cooperate if there was no benefit to them. These figures are ancient and, if successful, primarily responsible for the success and longevity of tribes and societies.

Not everyone has this power. Because of that they’re almost an elite group. In a way they’re Machiavellian. But they get things done, they make things happen. Their ways might be considered irregular, unconventional or even disruptive. Because of this, their method, we have to consider whether it’s a legitimate power.

The idea of such a person is not mythical or a modern idea designed to control others. But the idea of letting go of power, passing it on to this person, is something that probably frightens us, we have good cause to feel that way. But look at what we have: The United Nations, the EU, top heavy governments all over the world, vast bureaucratic systems, and very little to show for it. Could you be any more of a victim?

Your suggestion was that we needed policing. — Isaac

That’s not what I said. This is what I said.

But for me it’s morals that act as the policing agent in societies, but we still have to chose to act on those morals. — Brett

OK, so the first thing you'd need is some evidence of this. — Isaac

If you’re happy with the state of politics, the quality of life for people, then of course you won’t accept any of my evidence to the contrary.

So what exactly are you wanting to discuss here? Are you just going to repeat your theory until someone says "yes, you're right". If you're just going to dismiss any contrary theory on the grounds that you don't 'reckon' it's right then what's the point in writing what you think on a public forum? — Isaac

Power is the subject. You were the one that focused on consensus because you disagreed with me. I’m not after anyone agreeing with me. I’m interested in responses and ideas. If you think disagreement is dismissal then I can’t help you. I don’t feel dismissed because you disagreed with me over consensus.

Bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his or her actions.

If you do not take risks for your opinion, you are nothing. — Nassim Taleb in 'Skin in the Game'

Your absolutely right. Consensus is avoidance of responsibility. Those with power, who make decisions, must absolutely have skin in the game.

Power over people is acquired in only one of two ways. It is either given by consent, or it is usurped. To which method of acquisition are you referring? — creativesoul

By consent.

So, what about the minority that didn't elect them?

A case could be made that the power a government has over the people who voted for it is legitimate.

However, as long as there are dissidents, the government is imposing its will on people who do not wish it. What possible moral basis could there be for this? (in the context of government) — Tzeentch

If the people have taken part in an election run along democratic ideas then by voting they’re taking part in a process where they hope to win. But it’s understood that they may lose and become the minority. If you want to call those unhappy with results as dissidents then do so. But it’s a big leap to go from being those who lost an election to thinking of themselves as dissidents.

However if they reject the system of government, in this case representative democracy, then you could regard them as dissidents. In that case they would be hoping for another form of government. However, the government is still imposing itself on the dissidents on behalf of the people that elected them. So the imposing is still legitimate. What else could it be, unless you reject representative democracy, and then you’re imposing your view on others. And I assume you’d feel justified.

One way of imposing your will on another is to argue with their point of view and convince them that they’re wrong. I don’t see anything wrong with that on any level. And if someone was morally contemptible, a paedophile for instance, then why wouldn’t anyone try to impose their will on that person?

family.

As far as I am concerned, you are allowed to "impose your will upon another"
— alcontali — ZhouBoTong

You are really saying it is morally admirable to force your will onto others. Good luck selling that. — ZhouBoTong

I don’t think it necessarily means it’s morally admirable. But what’s wrong with it? Maybe we need to really parse that sentence.

I don't know if we have free will or not. — TheMadFool

My question, really, was whether you were coming at this question believing in God.

That doesn’t mean there’s no corruption, does it? See the blindness.

Now the only platform the DNC has is Anti-Trumpism, which is little more than hatred and paranoia. — NOS4A2

This is a silly thing to say and false and possibly a lie. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Actually it’s true, it’s all they have left. What you’re witnessing is the self destruction of the Democrats.

There are worse ways of spending your time than on this forum. It’s a strange place though. I put up an OP then wonder why I did it, the responsibility. And we don’t have to be right all the time, and agreement just kills an OP.

Sometimes I wonder if it is philosophy or just the damned internet; another addiction.

“For Christ’s sake!” (Internal howl).

for Christ's sake. (colloquial) Used to express surprise, contempt, outrage, disgust, boredom, frustration.

Edit: then I look for something to blame.

What a failure of a life or has life been for me. — Wallows

Believe me, I think nearly everyone might wonder that. We all think we’re the only one.

No idea where philosophers are on that list. — Wallows

I’d rather follow a warrior than a poet.

So what motivates that choice? Why do we choose sometimes to act according to morals and other times not? — Isaac

We are quite capable of acting on existing inborn tendencies towards evil. Our tendencies towards goodness are not infallible, after all we’re only human. Maybe our tendencies towards evil are older than our morals, or maybe they’re just the opposites that exist within us. Why do we chose? because that’s who we are, that’s the whole terrible thing about free will.

I don’t know if it’s true but anecdotal evidence suggests a lot of poets suffer from mental illness (I don’t know what the covers) and finally suicide. I don’t know if artists/poets suffer depression more than carpenters but I’d be ready to bet that they do. I think that’s because there’s so much time spent alone digging around in their private mental world that leads to all sorts of complications and consequences, too much involvement with the self. Almost like the examined life is not worth living. Go and belt a tennis ball instead.

Isn't thereby a government that exercises power imposing its will upon others? — Tzeentch

Of course it is. That’s why they were elected, to enact the policies they were voted in on. To not do so would be a betrayal of the majority.

Your position is a moral one. But your position isn’t clear to me. Your definition of “soft power” doesn’t explore anything about power. You talk about oppression even under democratic process. You mix up authority and power. I’m talking about people who take power without compromise, know what they want, what needs to be done and how to do it.

An example might be Winston Churchill during the war years. He knew what had to be done and lived with it. He didn’t seek consensus because there was no place for that. He understood power and wielded it in a effective way. He didn’t ask what should be done but told the people what had to be done. Maybe some actions were immoral. In that case I refer you to Machiavelli.

I think you're missing a couple of steps in your thinking. Politicians are swayed by polling because we live in a democracy and so what most people appear to want is what gets them elected, right? so your connection between that and watered down policies which don't make any real progress is only valid if {what most people want} results in a watered down policy which makes no real progress. — Isaac

In the situation I’m talking about the party has already formed a government. As time goes by their popularity is polled, usually on the popularity of the Prime Minister. If the PM’s ratings slide, probably because of particular issues and responses by the PM, then the machine-men in the party look to toppling him and replacing him. Of course polls are notoriously unreliable but they still act on them. So it doesn’t necessarily mean the voters want the PM gone, they’re just not very happy with what’s happening. Consequently it’s a risky move to take a clear position on issues, better to talk around it, seek out some “consensus” and never actually take a chance on what you believe is the right and necessary thing to do. As a result you get ” a watered down policy which makes no real progress.[/quote]”

As to why one group pulls in the opposite direction than another, I think that just takes me down a side road away from the topic. Whether consensus is responsible for the state of affairs doesn’t really matter. Very few people are happy with the state of affairs. Something’s behind it and I don’t think it’s because “a small number of groups for whom it is in their best interests to strongly declare the extent to which they are opposed to the other groups”. It’s the response that’s the problem.

here in Australia Prime Ministers can lose their position as a result of poor polling
— Brett

Why do you think that is?Is it a complete coincidence that people are so easily swayed by something as rhetorical as polling and this just happens to make extremely profitable consumer base? — Isaac

It’s the politicians who are swayed by polling. But I don’t see the connection between this and business anyway.

In the context of social relations I would describe power as "the ability to impose one's will upon another".

I consider that immoral, thus any government that utilizes such a principle I consider illegitimate. — Tzeentch

You might think that for the benefit of your position but there’s more to it than that.

“In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. The term "authority" is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust. This sort of primitive exercise of power is historically endemic to humans; however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well ... The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). An example of using power without oppression is the concept "soft power," as compared to hard power.

Much of the recent sociological debate about power revolves around the issue of its means to enable – in other words, power as a means to make social actions possible as much as it may constrain or prevent them. The philosopher Michel Foucault saw power as a structural expression of "a complex strategic situation in a given social setting"[2] that requires both constraint and enablement.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

In my view people's expectations have been watered down by advertising and the media. — Isaac

But I don’t see that behind the state of affairs in politics. In fact here in Australia Prime Ministers can lose their position as a result of poor polling. One of the consequences is consensus, trying to keep as many people as possible happy with broad middle of the road policies that deliver nothing.

Is it your position that God exists and gave us free will, or that it’s part of our evolutionary development?

So what motivates that choice? Why do we choose sometimes to act according to morals and other times not? — Isaac

Why do we chose to ignore our morals when we are moral creatures? I’ll have to think about it.

This is potentially just historicism. You've no alternative history of consensus-run groups during the same era to compare with. — Isaac

Yes you’re right, but only because things were not done by consensus. Obviously I would have to prove that and it would take more effort than I feel like. But we do know how things were done and we can measure the results.

The point is there's a lot more going on than increases in consensus politics. Singling out one aspect to blame when others are much closer in the causal chain is mistaken. — Isaac

But you do seem to be leaning towards the idea that there is an increase in consensus in politics.
What else might you suggest is behind what I’m calling a watered down version of people’s expectations.

I guess this is the crux of part of the OP, does consensus contribute to the sad state of affairs in politics?

But the limits to your imagination aren't evidence of anything, are they? — Isaac

That’s just me being diplomatic instead of asserting things as if I know everything.

it cannot simultaneously be the case that we are all motivated by evil as our default moral stance, — Isaac

I don’t believe it’s our default stance. It’s that we are capable of evil, as so many primates are as well. The whole idea or development of morals was that at any time we can chose to act according to those morals. But then much of this rests on the idea of whether or not evil comes from within or without, ditto morals. But for me it’s morals that act as the policing agent in societies, but we still have to chose to act on those morals.

Similarly, if there's a surge of immoral behavior when restrictions are removed, it's evidence that we are so inclined. — TheMadFool

There’s certainly a lot of behaviour by soldiers in wartime that would not happen without the restrictions they normally lived under being removed.

I find it difficult to imagine any society that would not have some form of policing, even if it came in the form of myths and stories passed on down about behaviour and consequences and instilled in members as they grew up.

Secondly, I don't see how your argument proves evil is an innate or natural tendency. At most it proves it is a tendency under specific circumstances. — Tzeentch

History suggests that people can behave in the most extreme way given the circumstances. And if they aren’t the ones committing the crime then they’re turning a blind eye. We really don’t know how badly people are capable of behaving. Most would think cannibalism was rare, but it turns out under the right conditions to not be so unusual. I don’t think it’s an act of evil, but it indicates how we understand little of our capabilities, or prepared to admit.

Just because humans in a modern agri-industrial mass society need policing, doesn't mean humans in every society ever need the same treatment. — Isaac

Can you give us some examples of these other societies?

2nd, final stanza :

Why must it always end this way?

Always the same ending, same style or format, nothing new. It feels like there’s no other way.

A dais with woman reading, with the ruckus of her hair
And all that is unsaid about her pulling us back to her, with her
Into the silence that night alone can’t explain.

Her silence, the silence about her, pulling us back into a silence deeper than the night. The commotion about her head. Who is she? Is she the woman reading a poem, the judge?

Silence of the library, of the telephone with its pad,

Heavy silence, books silent, telephone silent, words, words, words silenced.

But we didn’t have to reinvent these either:
They had gone away into the plot of a story,
The “art” part—knowing what important details to leave out
And the way character is developed.

We don’t have to make it new or start again. There is the format, the structure. Churn it out.

Things too real
To be of much concern, hence artificial, yet now all over the page,

Everything’s been done to death. It’s become meaningless, an artefact, like the movie. Now it’s everything, this empty, meaningless style.

The indoors with the outside becoming part of you
As you find you had never left off laughing at death,
The background, dark vine at the edge of the porch.

And there’s nowhere to go, to escape the dead repeated style that you perpetuated yourself, even though you knew. You always knew what was behind all that, the empty silence that you ridiculed. But look, the wildness of the real world waits silently at the edge of your artificial world.

Art is an expression of nature, by using space, either directly, or by some other mode.

Cause monkeys also have been recorded doing art, Brett.

Here's food for thought.

Is my smile art? When is it art? — Qwex

I think this qualifies as part of the definition: “ Whatever is not natural.” From unenlightened.”

Natural elements may be used but the result is contrived.